Ectoo,

{Would you like to explain how a horse running in the 70's is going to make you some money today}?

I think you will find the race below was analysed in exactly the same way as the Erin all those years ago. The point of analysing the old examples is not to find how ONE horse performed, but a common theme that runs through a method.

I except the author decided not to back in the race, but it does prove races are examined before the off. Also money can be made with 30 year old methods. I would put money on the fact the false favourite in this race was heavily laid even IF the winner was not backed.

This was posted on another forum BEFORE THE OFF

Be Lucky

2:10 Ludlow,

Have to say first off this is NOT a race I would back in.

I make Dragon King and Prancing Blade out classed.

I have Murt's man as the class horse in the race but out of form at the moment.

Cassia Heights is a bit of a puzzle poor strike rate at the course 1 from 13, but the key race for him was on this course. Jockey is a big plus but trainer form and overall strike rate not good. On the figures he has a fair bit to find he would not be my choice but good luck!

Satshoon, not happy with his last race, jockey may be a minus. He goes well right handed, stable in good/fair form and has a 45% strike rate if pushed this is the one I think can win this.

Mighty Montefalco, this could be anything. Made favourite to beat Swansea Bay at Worc. Poor run in last chase, but ridden differently than in his better attempts. This could be a dark horse from a hard stable to get right.

Ectoo

If you take your argument re '1970s races' to it's logical extreme then you would never use any previous race examples to show how to analyse current races. Countless authors have used 'old' races, Nick Mordin, Peter Braddock, Alan Potts, Clive Holt, Peter May, Jim Adams, Grahm Wheldon, Malcolm Howard, Mark Coton, Tony Drapkin...and many others. Do you think that there is nothing worthwhile to ber gained from reading previous examples from any of these authors? Trends may change over time but the qualities required for winning do not, and the core components of VDW's methods are those qualities.

The Bula Hurdle is not the first race I would pick from tomorrow's card. VDW tended to favour chases, though did have a few hurdling examples. Quite why anyone should be asked to justify their faith in a method by analysing one race that you choose I do not know, but maybe you can explain.

Rob

Is the prescence of Rooster Booster making life difficult?

I'll re phrase..using one horse's formline and expecting a recurring pattern from it is hopefull in the extreme. A little different from mass data.

ectoo

From my point of view the type of race has more influence than the presence of one horse.

If you think that 'one horse' and it's formline is that important, and I presume you mean Prominent King, then I think you have missed the point.

Rob

hot air mate..all the vdw threads are the same..like I say, shut the door on the way out..I have nothing more to say, so keep having yourselves on and patting each other on the back when you discuss another past event.

Scared to post up views?..what a carry on, then again most who can see through the vdw charade won't be surprised no one wants to analyse this particular race as the Rooster clearly shows the flaws in this old fashioned, out-dated method.


I won't respond to any replies because you are all just so full of waffle it bores me.

bye

Ectoo

I'd be genuinely interested to know what you mean by "the Rooster clearly shows the flaws in this old fashioned, out-dated method". If you explain, I promise I'll respond constructively.

Your wife's arse is worse than her mouth.

Parasites evolve from the host as a population control, Gummy! kill me, these ****s're wiping out the entire species.

Ectoo,

I had wondered why you have so much trouble on other boards. If this is how you carry on it is not surprising.

A man with definite views but not the wit to back them up. I have shown you races are discussed before the off, and still you keep on about the old races.

I have explained why the old races are important, and you don't seem able to grasp it.

I don't think it is because you are bored you don't want to talk. The fact is you don't understand it and rather than try to you would rather put it down.

I have to say I'm more than a little disappointed. There are many like you don't understand so it MUST be rubbish. Never mind we will still take your money when you are silly enough to lay the VDW horses.

Be Lucky

Why is it you only ask questions? If you know anything why not tell?

epiglotis ......

I think you should carefully consider your attitude to other members.

As ‘moderator’ I will NOT tolerate messages to another member like
“Your wife's arse is worse than her mouth.”
no matter whom it is from, how long they have been a member, or how many posts they have made.

I hope I make that clear.

ftse100

sorry for not being intelligent enough for this complex subject Mtoto

you really shouldn't criticise my responses to other people's ignorant replies and not criticise them..or i might think you are biased

i did the VDW stuff when it first came out, I moved on when I saw it didn't make a profit, I have yet to see ANYONE make a profit in real time..so maybe it's not me being a lesser mortal after all.

Anyone who says they can make it pay using VDW is a fantasist imho. You have had ample time on this board to prove idiots like me wrong..you have failed but some are too pompous to admit it and move on.

I'd reassess the situation because all I see are aftertimers. Lets see someone with a spine start a thread and post selections in real time for 6 months and turn a profit using VDW.

Now please don't ask me to waste any more time on this..it is boring when no one has the bottle to talk consistently before the race..I can pick em all afterwards.

Ectoo - Whilst I think you are missing the point regarding those who choose to look at VDWs old examples for clues (where else should they look?), I'll tell you my findings for the racing on Saturday using my interpretation of VDWs methods.

The Bula Hurdle shows Rooster Booster as the clear class/form horse and by far the most likely winner. Would VDW back him at the likely 4/6 odds, I doubt it, but should the horse drift to say 5/6, 10/11 or better then very possibly.

A class/form horse I believe should be backed at the likely price is Native Emperor at Lingfield.

The big race at Cheltenham shows Risk Accessor as the class/form horse, but a big danger to him could also be the 3rd on class/form Kadoun. By my calculations, anyone betting in this race would need to have both Risk Accessor and Kadoun on their side.

So, there you go. A brief summary that may satisfy your initial request.

thank you very much Guest, at last someone posts some analysis. I appreciate it.

AlanB, just baiting you with Rooster? at least you responded more positively.

I knew someone would post if I kept on long enough.

I wouldn't bet in it as I think Rooster is a poor price and it could be a tactical race which won't suit it. It could lose this tomorrow..excuses by trainer..not enough pace..not 100%..long way to Cheltenham etc.I wouldn't bet it at evens nevermind 4/6.

Spirit Leader may need a good pace as well but looks more value than RB. If pushed to bet in it I would go for Spirit Leader an improving horse and receives 11lb's from the champ..could be another excuse there for Hobbs .


it's not hard posting a few thoughts is it

Pkboy,
I just took the horses most tipped from the post summary of selections in each of the 3 races this left Keen Leader & Sir Rembrandt at Chepstow, Our Armageddon & Silver Knight at Wetherby, Moscow Flyer & Azertyuiop at Sandown i made them my form horses lol.I then reduced further using the consistency rating, Ability rating then used formcast of the daily mail & postmark of the post for two ratings as a guide, i thought Our Armageddon & Moscow Flyer were good bets im sure there are other things to take into consideration weight im told plays a big part in the vdw methods and im sure there is more to the ability rating than meets the eye just those two stood out a bit maybe thats what i should wait for the more obvious ones id just like a few more bets to work in with my own betting as i have long periods of inactivity just a few would do, for instance from 13/09/03 till 04/11/03 there were no bets some of this is by design though, the 13th Sept provided Arzoo at Musselburgh won 5/2 & Vinnie Roe won 9/4 Irish St Leger, they were followed then on 04/11/03 by Edredon Bleu won 4/1 Devon, 08/11/03 Swansea Bay won 2/1 Wincanton, 22/11/03 Compton Bolter won 9/2 prior to this there have been another 33 bets this year.I never play at odds on (as a rule) pk that`s why i left the novice.Im still developing temperament ive been pretty good this year for the most part (joking aside).

Ectoo, id like to have a go tomorrow if for nothing else the sport of it but please understand im only messing around with vdw and am no where near clued up on it plus ive had a few brandys tonight lol.I`ll use the selection box again to get my form horses in this chase as i dont know how the vdw boys do it for real and they`re not telling us either lol.



I dont see anything in the main races at Cheltenham but at Haydock the Tommy Whittle Chase should be worth a closer look.

Hussard Collonges, Keen Leader, and Chives have most tips from the summary and i`ll make them my form horses.

Ability wise: Hussard Collonges comes out 1st, Truckers Tavern 2nd, Ryalux 3rd, Kingsmark 4th so plus marks for HC and negatives for KL & CH.But as stated earlier im sure there is more to the ability rating than i presently understand and again we are left to tread water cos we wont buy the form books & they`re not telling lol, dont mind me boys im sozzled.

Consistency wise: Chives falls by the wayside again.


Weight wise: Hussard Collonges has won with the weight.

Ratings wise: Hussard Collonges comes out top with postmark.

Summary We have 3 form horses: Keen Leader is out of the first four on Ability although the whole field is like a blanket HC apart and the postmark ratings do not give support.

Chives although a form horse (selection box) lacks the class for this race and fails on consistency also, not a lot going for him then, although 2nd in this last year.

Hussard Collonges is a form horse (selection box) has the class and consistency ratings has won with the weight gets support from postmark rating and if in top 3 of formcast in daily mail id make him the most likely winner.But i cant claim it`s vdw ectoo as i dont know enough about it and am unlikely to do so.Hope ive not murdered the method too much .

[This message was edited by walter pigeon on December 13, 2003 at 02:07 AM.]

Ectoo

You say: "i did the VDW stuff when it first came out, I moved on when I saw it didn't make a profit, I have yet to see ANYONE make a profit in real time ... Anyone who says they can make it pay using VDW is a fantasist imho. You have had ample time on this board to prove idiots like me wrong..you have failed but some are too pompous to admit it and move on."

There are two aspects of that on which I'd like to comment.

First, you are certainly not alone in having failed to make a consistent profit from the ideas set out in VDW's early articles. But you may have opted out too early, as the essence of his approach was not disclosed until some years after his first letters, in my view not until the articles of 21/1/1985, 13/4/85 and 18/1/86. In this connection you should see, if you have not done so already, VDW's letter of February 1996 printed in Tony Peach's "Systems in my Racing".

Second, why on earth do you imagine that those who do make VDW pay have any interest in proving to "idiots like you" that it does? None of us is (as far as I know) trying to sell selections or systems based on our understanding of VDW. Rather, as far as I can tell those who take VDW seriously are primarily interested in trying to improve their understanding (no one, I think, claims a definitive understanding) by discussion with others who have the same objective. En passant, there is usually a fairly generous attitude to those who are interested but who may not yet have much to contribute to taking matters further, but certainly no wish to "convert" the sceptical.

Your attitude is really very similar to that of several who have posted here before but have now (with one sad exception) long gone. Sceptical - fair enough. But clearly fundamentally insecure about their own ability consistently to turn a profit by backing horses (indeed one, the late and unlamented Jimmy, was quite explicit that he'd given up backing horses and turned his attention to sports betting), and rather envious of those who seem comfortable to work away with a particular approach which MAY be "delivering the goods".

Well, the bottom line is that the only way you, or anyone else, will ever know for sure is by buckling down and putting serious time and effort into studying VDW's approach, which can only satisfactorily be deduced from his 140+ examples. There are no short cuts: no one who has made significant progress is likely to "spell it all out" for you or anyone else or, as far as I can see, gives a damn whether you believe the approach can be profitable or not.

A final thought. It is of course entirely possible that the odd individual (in all senses of odd) has put in so much time examining VDW's writings and examples that he has become deluded into thinking he is making a profit, and has developed some kind of messianic fervour to try to sustain an essentially unsustainable position, come what may. But if you or anyone else thinks that that is true of ALL those who are seriously knowledgeable about VDW's work, you are taking a very particular position, and you might wish to reflect on the probability of it being correct compared with the alternative, that a number of us do indeed make money from this "outdated" approach.

ok Alan, fair points.

I don't see the point in following up with VDW because I think one of it's main failings is the ability rating based on £, I just think that aspect alone is a nonsense. A lot of what I read isn't his methodology either it's just form reading and also pretty basic form reading that is suggested in every book written in this country.

If you think I am afraid of working hard you couldn't be more wrong. I think you will find that in 3 years I have put more work in on posting angles than any other username on any MB that we visit. I put a lot of good and bad, of course, posts on DR board for a good long time. Not all of them are worth a lot as I say but I have made people think a bit and I have tried to get people thinking slightly differently about approaching the task of finding winners. I don't espect credit, but also don't think that trying to suggest I am some sort of idle mug punter who follows the crowd is inaccurate.

The posts on message boards are just a small part of what I do, I work harder than 90% of other postees, I know that from reading how others analyse. I don't believe in aftertiming and all my posts have been before the race and to have people who don't do this criticise me is a little rich. Anyone can post after the race and the fact that most VDWers talk after the event tells me that they are the ones lacking in confidence.

I ask a simple thing from VDWers, if you think it makes profit then show people it does, smugly telling people how successfull you are without proof is worth nothing. If it does make profit I would congratulate anyone, I cannot congratulate aftertimers, in fact aftertimers are sad cases and losers imho.

If posting thoughts on races beforehand is so difficult then it's really a bit non productive even posting on MB's as the sport is all about before the event not after. Yes we can analyse the past but to just wait for races to be run and say "oh that was a VDW selection" is to me neither productive or informative because making decisions after a race is just plain and simple backfitting which is basically what all the VDW examples are.

No one has to prove anything, unless they keep endlessly harping on about something. If I kept saying I have this method and it makes profit and I win lots and then keep mentioning "winners" afterwards, I think people would think I was taking the p*ss. I think some that follow VDW take the p*ss in this way and I think that is what causes people to belittle VDW.

I think more before race selections and less after race ones might bring some interest back.

Ectoo

I don't think I've criticised you for not being prepared to work at racing: I've simply made the point that to understand VDW properly does require a lot of hard work, and that in itself is sufficient to put many off.

Neither do I think it quite fair to say that VDWers - at least those who have posted (and in some cases still post) on this forum - keep on about how successful they have been/are. Indeed, the serious ones I know are all quite clear that they have a way to go before they achieve the kind of strike rate that VDW said was realistic. Indeed, I would speculate that their prime reason for contributing to various forums, this one and others both more or less public, is the hope that, by sharing thoughts with others with similar interests, they might make further progress.

I accept that discussing winners that one has backed - or at least claims one has backed - after the races in question is annoying. (I've done it myself - sometimes to annoy another poster - but ALWAYS when, if need be, I am able to substantiate the claim, either by bookmakers' statements or having pre-posted the selection to other board members.) But the retrospective discussion of races is not pointless, and with VDW (and no doubt other approaches) there are "rules" which enable those who know enough to confirm (or question) any claim made post-race.

Let's take the Tripleprint Gold Cup as an example. Guest has stated that, in his opinion, Risk Assessor and Kadoun are what VDW referred to as class/form horses, and by implication (given its position in the ability-rating ranking) that Iris Royal is, too. I agree with him: on my understanding of how VDW assessed in-formness, all three are form horses today.

Another member, also reasonably familiar with VDW's work, might query Risk Accessor, on the ground that it fell last time out. Guest and I could, if need be, give such a member "chapter and verse" on why (beyond all reasonable doubt) VDW would have regarded RA as a form horse.

But in naming RA as the class/form horse, Guest is also saying that in his opinion both Young Spartacus and Royal Auclair are not form horses today. Others might not share this view, and discussion of differences here might be illuminating.

Discussion of all these - and similar - issues could happen as usefully this evening (or indeed in twenty years time) as before the race, because they are issues of methodology, where the relevant "facts" are all available before the race: from a methodological point of view, the result of the race is irrelevant. Thus if RA flops today, it doesn't mean he wasn't the class/form horse (VDW was very clear that not all class/form horses win). If he wins, it doesn't prove he was.

Now, Guest has gone further and said that, in the light of his reading of the race from a VDW perspective, backing both RA and Kadoun is a sensible thing to do. Later today, his judgement in that regard will be proven right or wrong. But his judgement is not the only one that could be made about betting in the race from a VDW perspective: VDW is NOT a system, and there are no automatic selections. If Guest is right it doesn't prove that VDW's approach "works", and if he's wrong it doesn't prove the contrary. ALL it tells us is something about the quality of Guest's judgement working, as he does, from a VDW perspective - and of course it would be idle to draw conclusions about anyone's judgement from what they make of one race.

If Guest put up each and every bet he made from a VDW perspective for the next six months (would you?), ALL we would learn was whether or not he had made a profit. For, without any doubt, others would differ at times from Guest both on what horses were form horses and, even when there was agreement there, on what conclusions should be drawn (in terms of bets) from the (shared) analysis. (Just as you and Guest clearly differ on the price at which you would regard Rooster Booster today as a viable betting proposition.)

Walter,

There is far more to temperament than restriction to ones betting activities, in fact just the opposite, although it is not, in my view to bad a place to start. Temperament starts with sorting out the card's, an inescapable fact which appears to have eluded many over the years and which still provides an easy route to the void reserved for mug punters. "Every day huge sums of money are thrown away by the hoards who haphazardly select a horse from this meeting or that" Careful consideration of what VDW considered "Irrational selection" shows that this is the start of the process in which mug punters proceed to put the odds against themselves.